It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would you think about a Lieberman/Powell ticket?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
It looks like the Democratic party is getting into full swing infighting mode... but none of their candidates look particularly strong.

Obama is spending all of his time defending himself against... everything.

And Hillary... I think there is enough disdain towards her husband... not to mention her own deceit and shenanigans... "Oh, I have no designs on the Senate... I'm just moving to New York *bam* Oh, I have no designs on the presidency..."

As such, I think '08 will be a weak race for the Democrats. The Republicans could do really well, if they put forth a good team, particularly one that is well-rounded, established, and moderate enough to attract some of those more left-wing votes.

What about Joe Lieberman and Colin Powell (not necessarily in that order)?

Lieberman has this weird popularity that transcends party lines. He's shown that he's got ethics and integrity. He's also got plenty of Washington experience under his belt.

And he looks like Senator Palpatine. That could win over the geek vote.


Powell has substantial military experience, and showed that he was not willing to compromise his own views to toe the party line... that should win some of the anti-Bush votes. He also could bring in some of the minority-race votes.

I can think of a few weak points to the pairing, but I'd like to hear opinions first... I may be thinking too deeply on this...

[edit on 3/8/2007 by Hobbes]




posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Bah... this was supposed to be in the 'Candidate Advocacy' category, but the gremlins be out in force today.

Mods, could you toss this over that way, please?



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 11:25 PM
link   
A Jew and a Black Man?!?

Yeah the southern GOP should love that. Not to mention the evangelicals.
The South is the only solid base the GOP has left and they don't cotton to no sissy yankees.
Are you nuts?

If the GOP can't find a couple "good ole boys" they're toast.

[edit on 8-3-2007 by whaaa]

[edit on 8-3-2007 by whaaa]



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Yeah, because... you know... the only 'red' states are those deep south, think-we're-still-part-of-the-Confederacy all-racist states. Right.

So, let me ask you this... let's say that the race is between Hillary, Obama, Lieberman, and Powell... who would get those votes?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Lieberman and Powell are two very well respected, honest men, and the Democrat-Republican ticket is very interesting.

I admire both men, and would vote for that ticket. I'd have to think about which one would be the prez, tho. First thought, it would be Lieberman, because of his political experience.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Aye.

They both have cross-party appeal. And while they're not as conservative as I'd like, I'd rather vote for someone I'd like who could win, versus someone I'd love who won't.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Its a very interesting ticket but I think that partisan views of them each on the national stage would be a problem.

Colin Powell faces the suspicion from Republicans that he's light in the loafers- they might be willing to tollerate that from their token cabinet member who they completely ignore, but not from a vice president (i mean he, he was their token veteran and token black guy both in one shot- how could they say no?).

Also, what I took away from Wesley Clark's loss was that a lot of people out there don't want to need a president who knows how the military works. They'd much rather have someone who knows how to get out of a war than someone who knows how to get in- even if he knows how to win.


Then there's Lieberman. Across the board he'll have trouble exciting people who dont normally follow politics because he looks a little older than most candidates and he tends to speak softly and not be terribly emotionally stirring. If all campaigning was done in text, I bet the results of every race he's ever run would shift a couple of points further in his favor.
Alos let's not forget how badly the left wanted to see him crash and burn last time out. People can be very petty. Whenever you hear someone say something really petty or really stupid, take pause and say, "i just learned how one of our voters makes his decisions". There are people out there, who never really cared enough to vote, but who kind of watch the news and feel important when they talk politics, who with no real understanding of the situation decided they wanted to see him go down in '06, who will say to themselves, "i'm not letting him get away this time. I'm gonna register, and I'm gonna go vote AGAINST HIM."

The price he'd pay for not being an extremist would be measured in money most of all- extremists are always a dream come true for a couple of tunnel-visioned interest groups and their supporters- they get the As and Fs on people's score cards and a lot of money goes into telling you how good and bad they are- you can't escape their names.
Decent, moderate politicians get Bs on almost everyone's score card and not so many people go all out for them.

Maybe if Lieberman got plastic surgery, took singing lessons from Howard Dean, and learned to play guitar he'd win in a landslide.

I think the formula for an interparty ticket is Strong Democrat-Maverick Republican. Mavericks from both sides would have a hard time. Going to the Republican side limits the number of voters the defecting candidate can bring with him (because lets face it, Democrats hold the natural advantage right now, if you factored out the candidates and just ran on party image). On the other hand, a moderate Republican crossing over cuts just a small percentage from the already disadvantaged Republican party by making some people feel reassured that this Democrat who appeals so much to his/her own base will be at least slightly reigned in.

Hillary is the obvious one to take on a Republican as a VP because she's the one who needs her reputation moderated the most. A southerner would be good; a veteran would be better. If Wesley Clark were Republican he'd be the perfect choice. He'd still be a pretty decent choice, with the minor inconvenience of Hillary hating everything he stands for as a soldier.
Colin Powell, for reasons already explained, isn't the best choice- Clark would be better.
Anthony Zinni would probably be a good choice to win Republicans, even though he's not a southerner, but whether or not he'd go for it is another question.

There are other possibilities but I dont want to drone on and on.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Its a very interesting ticket but I think that partisan views of them each on the national stage would be a problem.

Colin Powell faces the suspicion from Republicans that he's light in the loafers- they might be willing to tollerate that from their token cabinet member who they completely ignore, but not from a vice president (i mean he, he was their token veteran and token black guy both in one shot- how could they say no?).

That's the first time I've heard that allegation.



Also, what I took away from Wesley Clark's loss was that a lot of people out there don't want to need a president who knows how the military works. They'd much rather have someone who knows how to get out of a war than someone who knows how to get in- even if he knows how to win.

Clark is intelligent, but for some reason I can't put my finger on, I don't trust him.


Then there's Lieberman. Across the board he'll have trouble exciting people who dont normally follow politics because he looks a little older than most candidates and he tends to speak softly and not be terribly emotionally stirring. If all campaigning was done in text, I bet the results of every race he's ever run would shift a couple of points further in his favor.

Yep, that's true. If you're looking for eye candy, maybe Breck Boy would appeal to you. Not you personally Vagabond, I'm just conceding your point.

The thing I like about Joe is his honesty. He is above reproach, and that's why he freely follows his heart and is not afraid to let people know where he stands. He is a very rare breed in DC.


Alos let's not forget how badly the left wanted to see him crash and burn last time out.

No no no. Let's state it accurately: the body politic, the Democratic Party, wanted to defeat him because of his support for the Iraq war. So he went Independent. Then the people voted him back in.


Maybe if Lieberman got plastic surgery, took singing lessons from Howard Dean, and learned to play guitar he'd win in a landslide.

Yeah, and if maybe people could stop watching American Idol and get past someone's physical looks and concentrate on his character, we'd be a much better nation.



Hillary is the obvious one to take on a Republican as a VP because she's the one who needs her reputation moderated the most.

Hillary would rather give birth to a chair than to form an alliance with a Republican.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobeckyThat's the first time I've heard that allegation.


I think it primarily came out of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I guess some people who thought they had "gaydar" had pegged him as a homosexual and were afraid that there would be no getting the genie back in the bottle if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs were to come out under a policy of complete tollerance.

Most of the charges I recall were relatively flimsy- his ownership of spandex for instance.


the Democratic Party, wanted to defeat him because of his support for the Iraq war. So he went Independent. Then the people voted him back in.

I'll give you that one, but as goes the party, so go the partisan hacks. In '06 he had the luxury of a local electorate for whom he had accomplished things and with whom he had built some mutual familiarity over the years. In '08 he's got to deal with people who know him as that failed VP candidate who "we" (the party) tried to make an example out of, and who embarrassed "us" in that effort by winning without the party.



Yeah, and if maybe people could stop watching American Idol and get past someone's physical looks and concentrate on his character, we'd be a much better nation.

and if my mom had a y chromosome she'd be my dad. With a few decades of work and a couple of breakthroughs we can create a more enlightened society (or give my mom a y chromosome) but in either case we're not there at the moment.




Hillary would rather give birth to a chair than to form an alliance with a Republican.

At present, very true, but I have a low enough estimation of her sincerity that I believe she would do it to win and just make a pariah of the Republican in her administration afterward if she had to. Being the front-runner protects her from the need in most events.
The only case where that could change would be if an old-school Republican showed up and won a high-turnout Republican primary by narrow margin over someone like McCain. Never going to happen, I absolutely concede that, I'm just saying the Clinton is the kind of candidate who would have the most to gain politically by taking on a Republican running mate.

A more moderate Dem would be better served to take on a well known politically or socially minded businessman- Warren Buffet comes to mind- because they have the "I'm not an evil extremist" thing already going for them and now they need the "I've forgotten more in the last 5 minutes than you'll learn in a lifetime about how things work" thing.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:47 AM
link   


The only case where that could change would be if an old-school Republican showed up and won a high-turnout Republican primary by narrow margin over someone like McCain. Never going to happen, I absolutely concede that, I'm just saying the Clinton is the kind of candidate who would have the most to gain politically by taking on a Republican running mate.


But a bus going over the edge a bit slower is still going to crash.

I still think, with fair conviction, that if Hillary has the Dem ticket, they're just handing it to whomever else is running.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Liebermann/Powell? Where's my button? Yeah, I think I'd give those two a chance. Both are articulate, moderate, no ones fool, and several other superlatives, but you get my drift.

I think a ticket with those two on it would stand a very good, decent anyway, chance of unseating the stranglehold on the White House enjoyed by the Democrats and Republicans.

Too bad the likelihood of this is so slight.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
One word.... YUCK!!! Powell perhaps but I didn't like Liberman when he was Gore's VP choice and my feelings about the issue have only gotten stronger and it has nothing to do with his race/religion aka Judaism.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
He's bland, alright, no denying that.

He's also honest, plain spoken, did I mention honest? He's able to work both sides of the aisle, so he'd get at least some cooperation from Congress, instead of polite noises and actions to the contrary...

Powell is basically the same, only from the GOP side. Personally, I think a ticket of this sort stands a better than descent chance of winning.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
lieberman believes in the oppression of 10% of the population... sorry, no dice for me on that ticket



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Pretend for a moment I've no idea what 10% of the population you are refering to, and enlighten me.



posted on May, 10 2007 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Pretend for a moment I've no idea what 10% of the population you are refering to, and enlighten me.


atheists.... it's actually a bigger number if you count agnostics.

to quote lieberman:



"The Constitution gurantees Americans freedom of Religion, not freedom from Religion."


though.. he would've been much much better than our current vp who i now refer to as "headshot"



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I'd heard that quote on a number of occasions but never who'd said it. Kind of a dumb thing to say, IMHO. However, he's a pretty good politician (oxymoron, anyone?) if you only piss off 10-15% of your prospective constituency.

He's right in a strictly legalistic sort of way, but to say it is kind of silly. Why needlessly antagonize a group of people if you don't need to?



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
I'd heard that quote on a number of occasions but never who'd said it. Kind of a dumb thing to say, IMHO.


sadly, he's far from the ONLY politician that's said.



However, he's a pretty good politician (oxymoron, anyone?) if you only piss off 10-15% of your prospective constituency.


but that's just with ONE sentence. and



He's right in a strictly legalistic sort of way, but to say it is kind of silly. Why needlessly antagonize a group of people if you don't need to?


well, legally he's completely wrong if you go by established supreme court rulings.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hobbes
As such, I think '08 will be a weak race for the Democrats.


Actually, it's the Republicans who have a weak field.

McCain is too old and tired for the job. He doesn't have 'the fire' for it.
I don't see him really wanting it like he did 8 years ago.

Guiliani? I would have supported him until this week - Planned Parenthood donations.

Romney? Mormon Romney went and sat next to (and got an unofficial endorsement from) Pat Robertson - a fella who badmouths Mormons. Geeeze .. made my stomach turn.

The DEMS have Richardson. He's very talented and very capable. He has a great resume and lots of experience, including major international experience.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join